Did CIDR teach us nothing? was: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-01 Discussion Period extended until 19 June 2007 (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Wed May 23 12:15:50 CEST 2007
A couple of additional comments which I should have added in the first place... Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 23-mei-2007, at 11:47, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-54/presentations/ >> RIPE_NCC_Statistics.pdf > > >> The bottom line is that the # of PI assignments has (considerably) >> surpassed the number of PA assignments since 2003, and that the load >> on the >> routing table for PI is thus bigger than for PA, although the >> *percentage* of >> PI space as compared to PA is approx. 2%. > > > (As a percentage of the address space, not a percentage of the number > of blocks.) Correct. >> Or, the other way 'round, we use more than 50% of (additional) >> routing table >> slots for some 2% of address space (PI) and less than 50% for some >> 98% of PA. Which of course is not necessarily the full story as there probably are filters in place to prevent a good number of them to show up in the DFZ. > And that's with IPv4, where you have to show you really need a block of > 256 addresses to qualify for a PI block. Minor correction: you don't have to require a /24 equivalent to get PI. Actually, that is the (imho important) cross-link to the proposal for "upgrading" any smaller PI assignment to a /24 "if there are routing problems". Ref: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html Otoh, going classful again for PIv4 would change the 2%/98% ratio ;-) > In IPv6, that hurdle has been > removed so it has the potential to see even larger numbers of PI as > soon as IPv6 deployment starts taking off. Wilfried.